Israel/Gaza (Round 3)

[BBM]

What can you do when a group in charge of a country doesn't give a single fuck about their own civilians? To store soldiers and armaments amongst their innocent civilians is plain evil in the highest regards. I can't think of a more shitty thing that could be done short of bombing your own country just to kill your own people.

I for one support the Israeli attempts to cleanse Palestine of the Hamas and their terrorist organisation . Civilians are going to continue to die because the Hamas don't give a fuck about Palestine or their population; they know exactly what they are doing to make Israel look like shit for killing civilians as they attempt to take out Hamas targets.

This is my opinion based on what I've read up on the situation so far. Am I wrong in thinking this?

This is basically a blown-up hostage situation. Would you just shoot at somebody with a hostage, knowing that it would result in the death of the hostage too? Now what if it wasn't one hostage per terrorist, but 3 or 4?

[Rapier]

What if, to eradicate Hamas completely and be completely sure that the threat to Israel is over, it is actually necessary to kill thousands and thousands of civilians there?

There isn't much of a choice for Israel because Hamas already showed that they are not going to stop. They either let Hamas fire rockets at Israel and hope the Iron Dome can hold them until who-knows-when (while taking casualties), or they retaliate and go after the Hamas. Counterattacking seems like the only choice since the other side refuses to cooperate or ceasefire for more than half a day.

What's more important- nationalistic pride about defending your own country from a threat that has, at the end of the day, not actually killed very many people?

Would it be reasonable if Israel deactivated their anti-rockets system and allowed a massacre on their side so the score would become "proportional"? How many deaths do you need to justify a retaliation against aggressors? For me, one is enough.

Speaking from a purely logical perspective, Hamas being evil, and worse than Israel, doesn't mean that Israel can't be evil too.

So Israel is evil for... defending their country against aggressors? What.

---

Honestly, I'd like to see a third option where there would be less deaths, especially civilians'. However, it seems invading Palestine and taking down Hamas is the only way to end the conflict. This obviously won't be pretty since the Hamas uses civilians as human shields and the conflict is taking place inside borders. This isn't Fire Emblem or Tactics Advance, casualties are to be expected, at least Israel is keeping them to a minimum (while Hamas retorts to cowardly methods that threaten civilians' lives).

I find it amusing that other governments are pointing their fingers at Israel without pointing at Hamas' deeds as well. Why, instead of defending Hamas (by omission), won't the UN do something about disarming an obvious terrorist group? Do "Human rights" only work for a selected few?

[Raven]

This is basically a blown-up hostage situation. Would you just shoot at somebody with a hostage, knowing that it would result in the death of the hostage too? Now what if it wasn't one hostage per terrorist, but 3 or 4?

Yet people are acting like Israel are the biggest offenders here. It would be literally impossible to fight the Hamas and not have civilians get caught in the crossfire without simultaneously severely increasing the number of deaths of Israeli soldiers. The blood of the Palestine civilians are on the Hamas' hands.

[Rapier]

This is basically a blown-up hostage situation. Would you just shoot at somebody with a hostage, knowing that it would result in the death of the hostage too? Now what if it wasn't one hostage per terrorist, but 3 or 4?

This doesn't justify the shift of guilt that many "humanitarians" use against Israel. It is not their fault if the Hamas is retorting to such a cowardly method. Should they leave them be and stay home, hoping the Iron Dome holds their rockets? For me, it is clear that something needs to be done, and in this case it is "shooting the captors"

[Tryhard]

From what I understand, the Gaza death toll has exceeded 1,400 including many civilians while Israel's is around 60. Am I correct in this, and is Hamas tactics the sole reason for the amount of Palestine deaths? Because I find it hard to believe that not at least a significant portion of these are caused by Israeli military.

source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/gaza-faces-precipice-death-toll-tops-1400

Edited August 1, 2014 by Tryhard

[Rapier]

From what I understand, the Gaza death toll has exceeded 1,400 including many civilians while Israel's is around 60. Am I correct in this, and is Hamas tactics the sole reason for the amount of Palestine deaths?

The way I see it, no, although it undoubtedly contributes to a higher death toll. The own nature of the conflicts help increase the number of civilian deaths, since it takes place inside Palestine (in other words, since it is taking place inside cities, the chances of killing civilians are much higher). There is also the fact that civilians stand (not literally) between the crossfire, which has its weight on raising the casualties rate.

I know that Israel is capable of causing much more damage than they are doing, which leads me to think they are being hesitant on purpose.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Rapier

[BBM]

I wasn't talking about anything Israel had actually done. What I said was, Hamas being evil and worse than Israel doesn't mean that Israel CAN'T be evil. or that they're 100% in the right just because Hamas is 100% in the wrong (which they are, as EVERYONE AGREES). I didn't say that Israel actually WAS evil. It's not Israel's fault that Hamas is using hostages- but they are valuing killing Hamas over saving civilians.

You keep saying "what, do you expect us to simply do nothing?"

Yeah, why not? The casualties of Palestinian civilians vs Israeli civilians is almost 20:1. By continuing the war against Hamas, knowing that you have to kill civilians to do damage to Hamas, what you're saying is that the lives of 15-20 Palestinian civilians are less important to Israel than the life of one Israeli civilian. And this IS going to happen again. That's what's frustrating. Today it's Hamas, down the road it'll be some other group, half of whom probably joined the cause because they lost family and friends to Israel. Over the last several decades, Israel has taken the military route almost every time, and they've never achieved anything more than a temporary reprieve. Maybe it's time to try something new?

You'll say "if this was your country you wouldn't be saying this." And you're right in that no, I can't say for sure whether I would still have the same reaction if Canada actually was being bombed by another country. But right now, while not being in that situation, I'm saying that I would be advocating the same thing.

[Life]

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24785/Default.aspx

I'm going leave this here. Each point is backed up with creditable proof.

[Tryhard]

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24785/Default.aspx

I'm going leave this here. Each point is backed up with creditable proof.

An Israel newspaper/website commenting on the side of Israel? Unheard of.

Look, like BBM says, I think we accept that Hamas are definitely in the wrong here, but I find it hard to believe that Israel are squeaky clean here, too.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Tryhard

[Rapier]

You keep saying "what, do you expect us to simply do nothing?"

Yeah, why not?

Because giving Hamas a free pass is far from a better choice. For starters, we'd be ignoring a threat so to ensue security to the Palestinian side while allowing Israelites to die on the other side of the borders. Second, you may think that for now the most viable choice should be for Israel to defend themselves, but when will the Hamas stop their attempts to destroy their country? I'm willing to bet they won't stop attacking anytime soon, judging from what's happened so far and their nature. It doesn't seem to be something that we can just ignore or "deal with". We may think the death toll on Israel's side is currently low, but will it remain "low" if we leave Hamas alone until who-knows-when? It will be disastrous in a long-time spawn.

There is no such a thing as hiding a problem under the carpet and pretending it doesn't exist. The only way to end the conflict, as I see it, is to hunt down Hamas or have the UN do SOMETHING about it already. I honestly don't see any other way around it.

Over the last several decades, Israel has taken the military route almost every time, and they've never achieved anything more than a temporary reprieve. Maybe it's time to try something new?

It's not like these extremists are giving them any choice. They don't accept ceasefires nor discussions, and I must reiterate that they were the first ones to start an assault without choosing any other possible civilized option first. The goal of the Jihadists is to destroy Israel.

An Israel newspaper/website commenting on the side of Israel? Unheard of.

As long as they show evidence backing up their claims, it's good enough, I think.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Rapier

[Naughx]

Good vs Evil...

This isn't like that in real life... So taking a side isn't a great idea.

[Rehab]

Has the situation changed such that the Israeli forces have stated they're actually trying to destroy Hamas? Before, I had heard the impression that Netanyahu's cabinet had expressed that they want to keep it in charge, but hobbled, and that the Egyptian establishment may actually hate Hamas at least as much as the Israeli one does, due to its support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other muckings-about in Syria/the region. Whereas previously, people in the Israeli establishment had supposedly referred to its security problems, including Hamas, as "mowing the grass," something effectively impossible to solve permanently.

What's happening with those Jewish/Israeli settlements that were declared illegal some years ago these days?

Edited August 1, 2014 by Rehab

[Eail]

So the latest ceasefire (a 72 hour humanitarian ceasefire) lasted 2 hours and 3 minutes before rockets came from Hamas. And they used a suicide bomber as a diversion to kidnap a soldier.

That's fucked up. Like I said, these people aren't in this for peace. They want Jihad and they're not going to stop after Israel. The next target will be the USA afterwards.

Now tell me that Israel is the evil one here.

Ignoring the information that was reported by CNN corespondendant Karl Penhaul around 5 am Central Time that before the violence around Rafa began that around 700 yards from the Israel border with Gaza that a Tank division began moving and opening fire on buildings after the cease fire had been called, at which time he and his crew also reported that they had been in the area for a half hour and would swear they heard no small arms fire and the Tanks began taking action unprovoked

[Rapier]

Ignoring the information that was reported by CNN corespondendant Karl Penhaul around 5 am Central Time that before the violence around Rafa began that around 700 yards from the Israel border with Gaza that a Tank division began moving and opening fire on buildings after the cease fire had been called, at which time he and his crew also reported that they had been in the area for a half hour and would swear they heard no small arms fire and the Tanks began taking action unprovoked

Each have their own versions of what happened. This is confusing me a lot. Israel says that one of their soldiers was captured by the Hamas after the ceasefire, Hamas says they captured said soldier before the ceasefire. As far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence supporting any side.

Also, it is worth saying that the journalists may not be reporting the truth - or at least omitting important parts on purpose.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yeah, why not? The casualties of Palestinian civilians vs Israeli civilians is almost 20:1. By continuing the war against Hamas, knowing that you have to kill civilians to do damage to Hamas, what you're saying is that the lives of 15-20 Palestinian civilians are less important to Israel than the life of one Israeli civilian.

to israel, the life of an israeli is worth more than the lives of 15-20 palestinians. that is one of the unfortunate truths of government. a nation's citizens are worth more to them than another nation's.

to stop and do nothing against hamas attacks is simply unreasonable.

----------------

i think the simple fact of the matter is that there is no solution, and that there is no correct way to go about this at all. the situation in the middle east is much too complex. both sides must stop warring. hamas cannot win, should and must surrender. but they won't. as mentioned earlier, they don't have much care for the lives of those in gaza or elsewhere. because of that, and israel's position in this, outlined in rehab's posted link about "mowing the grass," thousands of innocents will continue to perish or become displaced.

no one knows what the fuck to do.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[jiodi]

Thankfully we have all sorts of media to sift through and decide what is true based on our own biases.

I give you the kinda stuff that's really making people veer away from supporting Israel's current assault:

Unicef says kids are being killed on purpose:

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/13172-unicef-israel-deliberately-killed-264-palestinian-children-in-gaza

Israeli sniper being a racist psycho:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/31/373518/israeli-sniper-admits-killing-13-kids/

Palestinian journalist blown up right before our eyes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/30/rami-rayan-killed-dead-gaza-attack_n_5634548.html

----------------------------

And if you are more keen on not believing that that shit is going on or want to find good justifications for why Israel HAS to do this you can always go to the other side:

Hamas being barbaric:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/742986/us-calls-hamas-attack-barbaric-violation-of-gaza-ceasefire/

Israel is morally justified:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118788/israels-war-gaza-morally-justified

Antisemitism is rising cause of all this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28552489

---------------------------------------------------------

Now, the hard part, for me at least, is trying to find what the facts are. It's hard to do when this shit is so hypercharged and divisive but a pretty safe way to go about it is to look into the history and try and reverse-engineer how it started, using numbers and facts supported by both sides and/or third party observers.

Saying "good vs evil" is a good way to be automatically wrong. Even trying to figure out who is good and who is evil is kind of an exercise in futility. What's more important is getting to the bottom of it, having everyone clear their heads and try and put themselves in each other's shoes. Thankfully, that's not on any of us, we just have to understand it and be informed about it if we're gonna talk about it.

Hamas is a fine example of blowback. Great Britain and Co conquered Palestine and gave the country to the Jews so they could have Israel (and western powers could have a friend in the middle east). Israelis have since maintained control over the land leaving Palestinians displaced and occupied. The more the settlements and other crap that goes on and the more than apartheid is a thing in that country, the angrier the Palestinians get. It doesn't justify Hamas, but it makes for a logical origin story.

And saying "if terrorists were lobbing rockets into your country all the time you'd do the same" is a false equivalency, for the reason I stated above. The US is not occupying Canada or Mexico. Also, 9/11 was another blowback example and we went off and blew the shit out of some countries over it. We were not justified, just as the attack itself was unjustified, but a lot of people in the US were like SHIT YEAH DAWG GET IN THERE BLOW PEOPLE UP GET EM. And those of us who thought that were wrong. I was wrong when I thought it. Just because we WOULD doesn't mean it is appropriate.

A solution where Palestinians get some of their own country back that's not blockaded and they are recognized by the world as a country again seems like a pretty reasonable solution. The problem with it is it doesn't seem like anyone wants to even try it cause politics and propaganda and maintaining rule through fear and shit. And as a regular person it's so hard for any of us to try and look at the situation without bias.

[Life]

From an ex-soldier's point of view, I can tell you this.

If I were to see someone running around in the middle of the night while in Gaza and I don't see a helmet, I'd shoot. Why? Because chances are that they are going to attempt to harm me and the real civilians won't be out and about at night while tanks are rolling through.

My life over yours and my friends over yours. It comes down to that. But take that with a grain of salt since it is my personal opinion.

[jiodi]

From an ex-soldier's point of view, I can tell you this.

If I were to see someone running around in the middle of the night while in Gaza and I don't see a helmet, I'd shoot. Why? Because chances are that they are going to attempt to harm me and the real civilians won't be out and about at night while tanks are rolling through.

My life over yours and my friends over yours. It comes down to that. But take that with a grain of salt since it is my personal opinion.

Oh trust me that insight is valuable as hell. Seeing the difference between cold across-the-globe analysis and someone who is in it on a certain side is valuable.

I don't want you thinking I don't get that, But I definitely would like to see the other side from as close as a forum conversation, even.

[Rapier]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_Ugsv5u-sW0

10/10 would follow.

[dondon151]

man it's so easy to reply to rapier's post because one sentence that addresses all of his misconceptions about opposing opinions:

Because giving Hamas a free pass is far from a better choice.

not what we're saying.

It doesn't seem to be something that we can just ignore or "deal with".

not what we're saying.

There is no such a thing as hiding a problem under the carpet and pretending it doesn't exist.

not what we're saying.

here's one commonly employed strawman. other common fallacies include the conclusions that suppressing hamas is an effective long-term solution (hint: it's not), that palestinians in general are all in behind hamas (hint: they're not), and that israel has only one course of action . if you employed your faculties of common sense and empathy just a little bit, it should become very obvious that israel's course of action isn't going to work.

now, i normally rather like pat condell, but he makes several rhetorical and factual mistakes in the posted video. first of all, i'm not sure why you posted it here in the first place, since it seems pretty clear that any of the users who have espoused an even remotely anti-israel position did so without being hypocritical and ignoring hamas's complicity in perpetuating this conflict. so i don't know who you are trying to argue with here: either you are trying to prove a point to no one, or you seem to think that we're saying something that we're not actually saying (my guess, judging by your previous post, is the latter).

second, i wouldn't blame people for not being vocal over the slaughter of civilians in syria and iraq simply because the media didn't cover it very well. but additionally, if israel is supposed to be the emblem of freedom in the middle east, then it deserves to be condemned with greater fervor for its cruelty.

third, israel is not a free country like condell claims. it's a freer country than its neighbors, and that's the only positive word i can put in on the subject.

fourth, condell's claim that israel would be "perfectly find with their strip of land" is demonstrably false, and history can show that with the expansion of jewish-occupied territory.

fifth, any transgressions that were previously conducted against jewish peoples in non-jewish states are irrelevant to the current conflict at hand. the sordid history of anti-semitism in both the christian and muslim worlds does not mean that present jewish people deserve any sort of repayment. it would be like saying that present-day germans are responsible for holocaust reparations.

sixth, the alternative that condell is suggesting, which is to perpetuate violence against an already resentful people, is in his own words, "so deluded that [he] should be on medication."

seventh, of course this is not what progressive people in western countries want, lol.

Edited August 8, 2014 by dondon151

[Tryhard]

All of that and I find his comments on Muslims and progressives (who as far as I know, are not solely on one side nor a dominant part of the media) unwarranted and inappropriate.

Essentially,

no one knows what the fuck to do.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Tryhard

[dondon151]

for what it's worth, i do like pat condell's video on islamophobia. but it's perfectly viable to oppose islamic extremism and still condemn israel.

[Life]

This is gonna be fun. Donny, this is for you. Your points in your order.

1. It's one thing to want better for the Palestinians. It's another to claim that Israel is commiting war crimes and genocide when top generals from both the US and British army repeatedly claim that Israel has the most humane approach of fighting terror.

Take the US now. If they go back to Iraq to take on IS, what do you thing the civilian casualty rate will be? A shitton higher than in Gaza. Who's going to be marching in the street screaming bloody murder over those death?

*crickets*

The point is that most pro-Palestinian rallies are thin veneers for anti-semitism or full of college students that took a class on the ME and now consider themselves experts. It's why cries like "death to the Jews" and "Hitler was right" are still be chanted. Or the NYC rally that called for an Intifadah (which means killing our civilian population).

2. Why should Israel be the only country in the world to be held to that standard? US isn't. GB isn't. Why only Israel?

As Navi Pillay pointed out, "when Palestinian men beat their wives, it's Israel's fault".

3. Now I call bullshit. Israel is a democratic country with 1.5 million Arabs that choose to go to the army and fight for their homeland. Last week, an Arab woman was on Galgalatz (Israeli radio station) and she has two sons in the army, one in Golani and one in Kfir. She was saying how she was proud of them and how she is proud to live in a country where she is treated as an equal. I remember this because I was in a cab at the time, listening.

Don't spout shit you have no clue about.

4. Actually... yes, Israel would be. Try actually opening a history book.

Israel conquered the Sinai in 1967 in a DEFENSIVE war. And then, they spent the next 15 years offering it back to the Egyptians for peace, which succeeded in 1982. Same thing with a good part of the West Bank and Jordan but Jordan didn't want it. Israel also pulled every single Jew out of Gaza in 2005 in an attempt to give Palestinians their own land. Then they voted Hamas into power in 2007, knowing that Hamas only cared about the destruction of Israel and look where that's gotten us today.

5. Yes and no. The UN brought up a two state solution where Israel said yes and the Arabs said no. Then there was a war and Israel still existed.

Oh wait, that was 1947. My bad.

The point that you're missing is that the UN granted Israel a country in an area where a country didn't exist and Jews had been living there for thousands of years (with the main flock of settlers coming in the 1890s and 1920s to escape Russian pogroms). The argument about who was there first is long and pointless but no land was stolen at any point. Arabs and Jews co-existed in the area peacefully...

Until the late 1930s when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem decided "fuck it, I'm gonna be butt buddies with Hitler". Since then, skirmishes started which then turned into full out wars after 1947.

If you're going to point fingers, don't blame everyone else for your own mistakes.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Life

[Rapier]

man it's so easy to reply to rapier's post because one sentence that addresses all of his misconceptions about opposing opinions:

Yeah, it's easy when you take out of context what someone else said, then criticize said person based on the pretext and consider yourself victorious. Your level of dishonesty is impressive.

The first three quotes do not refer to "what we're saying". I wasn't particularly speaking to the anti-Israel opinions on the thread (these quotes were not a reference to them, at the very least). I was speaking to BBM at the time, who advocated for a passive measure toward the conflict. What I said makes perfect sense in context. It's not my fault if you missed the point entirely.

here's one commonly employed strawman. other common fallacies include the conclusions that (1) suppressing hamas is an effective long-term solution (hint: it's not), (2) that palestinians in general are all in behind hamas (hint: they're not), (3) and that israel has only one course of action . (4) if you employed your faculties of common sense and empathy just a little bit, it should become very obvious that israel's course of action isn't going to work.

(1) - Suppressing Hamas isn't an effective long-term solution? Why not?

(2) - I don't recall ever saying palestinians in general are all behind Hamas, talk about employing the strawman tactic! I realize there's a 75% of the population who just want to live in peace. The Hamas doesn't have such a high rating approval and chances are the palestinians would be protesting against them if the government wasn't so authoritarian.

(3) - What else would you have them do? Sit and let Hamas launch rockets at Israel like there is no tomorrow? I dare say that suppressing Hamas is the best present course of action, even if it is not by all means a perfect solution (isn't appealing to a perfect solution a fallacy itself?). Again, if you have a better suggestion, I am willing to listen.

(4) - No, it isn't that obvious. Do explain, or else your point here means nothing. Saying "lol its obvious you're wrong your just stupid" means nothing.

first of all, i'm not sure why you posted it here in the first place, since it seems pretty clear that any of the users who have espoused an even remotely anti-israel position did so without being hypocritical and ignoring hamas's complicity in perpetuating this conflict. so i don't know who you are trying to argue with here: either you are trying to prove a point to no one, or you seem to think that we're saying something that we're not actually saying (my guess, judging by your previous post, is the latter).

Here's a third option to your false dilemma tactic: I wasn't referring to anyone on the topic in particular. I was referring to the Israel/Gaza conflict and attacking the misconceptions that many people in general have about it. Also, that's not even all that the video is about, you seem to be intentionally oversimplifying it. The other points presented in the video do serve as an argument against anti-Israel positions, as you already proved by answering to them on your following points. So, it doesn't seem that I am trying to prove a point to no one, nor does it seem that I misinterpreted what you all said after all.

second, i wouldn't blame people for not being vocal over the slaughter of civilians in syria and iraq simply because the media didn't cover it very well. but additionally, if israel is supposed to be the emblem of freedom in the middle east, then it deserves to be condemned with greater fervor for its cruelty.

That's the thing. The media's lack of decent coverage and the "human rights defenders"'s omisssion show how much they actually care about the slaughters of civilians in the eastern world and how truly partial they are. Therefore, it is hipocrisy to point their fingers at Israel while conveniently let the atrocities on the eastern world pass.

Israel IS the emblem of freedom in the middle east, in case your irrational hate toward it made you forget the facts. The ones who deserve to be condemned with great fervor for their cruelty are the other middle eastern authoritarian/dictatorship governments, and whoever omits mentioning their atrocities while having knowledge about what is going on there are accomplices. Israel has not shown any signs of cruelty with either Palestinians or toward anyone inside their country (yes, I'm claiming that comparing Israel to an apartheid regime is pure counterfactual bullshit), if anything it is obvious that they are holding back and trying to avoid casualties to a minimum, which is almost impossible taking into account the conflict takes place inside Gaza and the Hamas deliberately use citizens as human shields.

third, israel is not a free country like condell claims. it's a freer country than its neighbors, and that's the only positive word i can put in on the subject.

How is it not a free country? I don't feel like addressing this since Life already did a perfect job at it, so I'll just leave this question here and wait for you to elaborate your argument properly.

sixth, the alternative that condell is suggesting, which is to perpetuate violence against an already resentful people, is in his own words, "so deluded that [he] should be on medication."

seventh, of course this is not what progressive people in western countries want, lol.

Except no one wants Israel to perpetuate violence against Palestinians. They want to stop Hamas, which can't be done without casualties (especially because of the cowardly tactics employed by the Hamas). You are, again, making a strawman out of people's positions.

The point that you missed is that the progressive people are loud when it comes to Israel while not bothering to attack the Hamas or the eastern world's atrocities. It is very clear that they have one-sided views on the matter.

[Naughx]

Even if Israel killed more civilians, Hamas doesn't want nor seek for peace...

Edited August 9, 2014 by Naughx